CHAPTER XV NATIONALISTIC TARIFF AND IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION THROUGHOUT THE WORLD Protective tariff measures are less defensible than are restrictive immigration laws. The lowering of world standards of living are a result of the universal adoption of a national self-preservation. Account of tariff and immigration acts enacted throughout different countries since the World War. COOPERATION AS THE MEANS OF ADJUSTING OPPOSING VIEW POINTS Coming, then, to an application of this general principle of economic nationalism to our own international affairs, what do we discover? If differing standards of living make for a lack of understanding among nations, what should be the trend of our national legislation and diplomacy? To attempt to unify the standards of living of the world? Or to preserve our American standard, regardless of the effect of such action on the standards. of those nations with whom we have dealt? The question seems to resolve itself into a case of adjustment between the two points of view, for either one carried to the extreme is bad. Some would hold that it is the business of every nation, as well as the affair of every family, to care for itself, to develop itself first. The very justification of narrowness, as in a knife blade, lies in its ability to cut. On the other hand, if carried to the extreme, the viewpoint of diffusion amounts to no effect at all. Assuming that the Japanese were to come to the United States, in great volume and multiply here, it would not have beneficial results either for the American or for the Japanese, as it must inevitably end in our taking on their standards of living. We might attempt to change their standards, but they would be the conquerors, and we must accept their conditions. Diffusion in that event would lead to retrogression. Evolution proceeds, step by step, broadening the world to different standards, and those that lag are simply dropped from the world's account. Co-operation is the means of adjustment of the opposing viewpoints. THE BASIS FOR UNRESTRICTED IMMIGRATION, HUMANITARIAN RATHER THAN SCIENTIFIC A protective tariff program is less defensible than restrictive immigration measures, as it does not assist in, nor contribute to, the welfare of the world. In immigration laws, there is an open question as to whether we are not more or less tinctured with the Christian doctrine of the brotherhood of man. From a scientific viewpoint, this is not warranted, as some animals have evolved more than others. The question is whether or not the superior type should be halted and the development of an inferior type encouraged. In the process of evolution, different types of animals have found survival value in different organs. Examples of this are found in the development of fins into the wings of a bird, and the talons and jaws of quadrupeds into specialized uses. The highest of the type, human beings, have developed consciousness, power of thought, reason, intuition, memory, and all qualities which distinguish the higher grades from the lower. Therefore, consciousness, which represents the highest development, has survival value. The truth is that nature is aiming at the superman, using that term in a generic sense. The development of the superman does not imply physical hardiness, necessarily, however, but rather the higher faculties of sympathy and understanding, which qualities are lacking in the lower types. PROTECTIVE TARIFF DOCTRINE ECONOMICALLY UNSOUND What our national policy has been is definitely set forth herein. Our immigration and tariff laws have steadily developed toward one purpose, the maintenance of the American standard of living. This policy has been persisted in, in spite of the fact that a protective tariff is economically unsound and injures the nation employing it as well as the one against which it is being directed. Cuba had developed its sugar industry owing to a status between it and the United States, and in imposing a protective tariff against Cuba we injure that country. In the same manner, before the passage of the McKinley Act, we had imported most of our tin plate from Wales and that protective act injured Great Britain. In other words, wherever a certain status has been developed in a country, any sudden disturbance of that condition will effect losses. Imagine the United States adapted to protective tariffs and depending upon these acts in its business policy, if free trade principles were suddenly incorporated into its laws, then great failures would result in the trade world. A protective tariff, in itself, is not of a disturbing influence, but only when it suddenly affects an existing status. In many cases, beneficial results would accompany tariff enactments. Temporarily the Fordney-McCumber Tariff will injure Cuba when the rate is exacted from Cuban sugar, the duty upon which the efforts of Senator Smoot seemed especially concentrated. The immediate effect of this will be injurious, but, in the "long run," it will compel Cuba to diversify its interests, since it will compel that country to abandon its one-crop policy. Many people believe that the failure of our Southern States to keep apace with other sections of the country in economic progress is due to its one-crop condition. THE SUPREME TEST OF THE AMERICAN STANDARD Of Living It is assumed that Representative Fordney, the sponsor of the Fordney-McCumber tariff measure, is the spokesman for the administration and, presumably, for the majority of the people in the United States, when he advocates a nationalistic policy in that "we want Americans to be better clothed, fed, and enjoy more of the comforts of life than is possible in the majority of foreign countries." 1 Our economic nationalism, is, to a great extent, the result of the attempt to maintain a standard of living and has been greatly intensified by the World War. As a direct result of the world conflict the change of the United States from a debtor to a creditor nation accentuates the fact of the American standard of living, and it is here that it meets its supreme test. An aggregate of the indebtedness of other nations 1 Congressional Record, 67th Cong., 1st Ses., Vol. LXI, p. 3481. to the United States approximates twenty billions of dollars, and the flounderings of the war-destroyed countries must be eased if honest attempts at reconstruction are to be of any avail. In general, it is to the interest of a creditor to assist his debtor to meet his obligations, but the nationalistic ideal of the American standard of living prevents this in the Fordney-McCumber tariff and in the proposed greater restrictive immigration measures. THE ATTEMPT OF OTHER NATIONS TO Resort, for The resultant inability of our foreign debtors to market their goods in this country leads them to attempt to resort to the policy of raising their tariffs to prevent our goods from flowing to them, and thus every country attempts to prevent the raising of the standard of living of all others. Moreover, they restrict immigration into their countries in order that their standard of living may not be changed, and thus block other nations from improving their own. For example, by a law taking effect on March 25, 1920, Australia has provisionally enacted a protective tariff to further, according to official reports, the economic independence of its people. For the protection of its industries, an executive decree of July 6, 1920, is issued by Argentina to increase its import rates to the extent of twenty per cent. This protective trend is demonstrated by Belgium in the passage of the tariff of June 10, 1920, which authorized the government to increase its specific rates up to three hundred per cent, and in the act of March 31, 1921, which authorized the increase up to six hundred per cent. This policy was for the purpose of counteracting the tariff policies of other countries. A Tariff Commission was appointed by Canada in 1920, and the words of the Finance Minister on May 9, 1921, refer to the folly of revising their tariff until the tariff conditions in the United States become more settled. He says, any proper Canadian tariff must have consideration to the settled tariff conditions of the United States." The tariff of British India shows a desire for protection in that the budget of 1921 provides for an increase of duty on many luxuries. |